No pets on lease but want to buy property

tbs624

KiKi wrote: »

.... leases on leasehold properties often have a no pets clause as standard. It does not automatically mean that people 'have chosen to live there pet free' and hate animals. It can also - and IME often - means that the leasehold clause is historical, and as no-one else has pets it just hasn't been reviewed, and they may ALL be animal lovers!

........you can agree things with your other freeholders. But yes, if they say no, and refuse to have an animal then you should look elsewhere, but I do think you were right to ask.

I also think that just because a lease on a purchased property has a clause, it is not necessarily indicative of the current freeholders' feelings or wants - it may well simply be unchallenged. So in my opinion, *some* of the assumptions in this thread are jumping the gun a bit.

My bolding.
KiKi - you make a useful point about some clauses simply being unchallenged,rather than being reflective of the current occupants personal attitude/thoughts on the issue.

However, if youlook back you'll see that the very first post states "I asked for an official response from the 3 other freeholders and they said No to pets again."

Respond posters can only go on the info with which they are provided - clause in place, other occupants apparently prefer to adhere to itso no "jumping of the gun" as such.

OP has *later* posted that s/he has persuaded one out of the three others to agree to the dog - that does not mean s/he would eventually get a green light from the others. As a couple of us have suggested, OP perhaps needs to consider how s/he would view matters if s/he herself wanted to raise the matter of a breach by one of the others on a different matter.

Scottenham

tbs624 wrote: »

My bolding.
KiKi - you make a useful point about some clauses simply being unchallenged,rather than being reflective of the current occupants personal attitude/thoughts on the issue.

However, if youlook back you'll see that the very first post states "I asked for an official response from the 3 other freeholders and they said No to pets again."

Respond posters can only go on the info with which they are provided - clause in place, other occupants apparently prefer to adhere to itso no "jumping of the gun" as such.

OP has *later* posted that s/he has persuaded one out of the three others to agree to the dog - that does not mean s/he would eventually get a green light from the others. As a couple of us have suggested, OP perhaps needs to consider how s/he would view matters if s/he herself wanted to raise the matter of a breach by one of the others on a different matter.

To be honest I didn't fully explain the whole story as did not want to go on. But I loved everyone's opinions they brought many smiles to my face :rotfl:
Kiki you clearly have a grasp with reality and make a great example with your wood floor clause. Thanks for you opinion. :A

propertyman

Scottenham wrote: »

Kiki you clearly have a grasp with reality and make a great example with your wood floor clause. Thanks for you opinion. :A

KiKi wrote: »

I have a share of freehold currently, and the leases in our flats state no wooden / laminate flooring. We ALL have the original Victorian wooden floors in our flats. We agree that it's fine, and we haven't changed the lease - as long as it doesn't cause a noise problem to anyone else. Much easier and cheaper than changing the lease.

Sadly you are both well intentioned but utterly misguided, having tackled issues with common sense knowing nothing of the can of worms that you have opened.

The dog owner or laminate floor owner is in breach of the lease.A freeholder cannot decide to waive that without the risk of being unable in future to say No Dogs or Carpet the Floor.

If either of you had taken advice you would know of two cases in the last year up on pets and floors which amounted in the floor case to £90,000 in legal fees. The dog had to go and the FH was stuck with a flat with wood floors and the complaining lessee (noise) is now suing the FH for damages in the millions.:eek:

hethmar

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Can you tell us more?

Son tells me they were a really nice couple (both medics) but they knew the lease banned pets. They were really given a choice between the flat or the dog and they chose the dog. They sold up and moved to a bigger flat nearby in another lovely conversion which accepted dogs.